What next, thank god Labour are on their way out after reading this in the telegraph.

Buy-to-let investors will face another "tax" on their properties from next year, it emerged last night.

They will have to pay several hundred pounds for compulsory energy performance certificates, which are already a key component of the controversial Home Information Packs.

A surveyor, Green tax to hit buy-to-let property owners The Government has been criticised by the House of Lords for including energy certificates in the Home Information Packs

Around 850,000 people own buy-to-let properties, many of which have been bought to augment their pensions. They have already been hit with extra red tape this year with a scheme that requires them to give their tenants' deposits to a third party for safekeeping.

Experts said last night that buy-to-let landlords would be forced to employ qualified energy inspectors to give their properties an energy rating between A and G.

The certificates would likely cost around £200 and could require renewal as often as every three years, adding considerably to the financial and administrative burden of renting out a property.

The Government confirmed last night that it was extending the energy certification scheme to rental property in October next year. However, no regulations or guidelines for landlords have been produced.

"We are working in the dark a bit," said Simon Gordon, the head of public affairs for the National Landlords Association.

Michael Gove, the shadow housing minister, said that the lack of regulation was typical of the Government's attitude towards the certificates and their inclusion in Home Information Packs, known as HIPs.

"They are operating on a wing and a prayer," he said. "The fact that there are no regulations surrounding the extension of HIPs into the rental sector only served to demonstrate the way in which the whole thing has been botched."

Home Information Packs become compulsory for any house put on the market after June 1. However, they have been widely criticised due to fears that there would not be enough qualified inspectors to carry out energy inspections and that they would not speed up the house-buying process.

Homeowners are already beginning to put properties on the market in order to avoid the cost of Home Information Packs before the deadline. The packs could cost up to £600, once the cost of the energy certificate, legal searches and other documents is included.

The Conservative Party has tabled a motion in the House of Commons to scrap the packs and this last-ditch attempt to throw out the law will be put to the vote on May 16.

The Government has been criticised by the House of Lords for including energy certificates in the Home Information Packs. Under European law, energy inspections are required every 10 years, but they will be carried out far more frequently in the UK because of their inclusion in the packs.

A Government spokesman said that it was looking at energy certificates on rental property also being carried out more frequently than every 10 years, because it believed that this would make rental homes more energy efficient.

However, one expert said that he did not understand what a landlord's incentive would be to implement energy efficient measures.

"The landlord does not pay the heating bills in most homes he rents out," he said.

The Association of Home Information Pack Providers (AHIPP), which trains energy inspectors, said that it was talking to the Government about renewing the certificates on rental properties every three years.

Mike Ockenden, the director general of AHIPP, said that it was also lobbying to bring forward the October 2008 deadline for certificates on rental properties on the basis that there would be enough qualified
inspectors to carry out the checks.

Forcing landlords to obtain green certificates places a further obstacle in the way of Britain's growing army of buy-to-let landlords. Ten per cent of all mortgages taken on last year were for buy-to-let purposes.

Mr Gordon, at the NLA, said that while it was making its members aware of the move towards energy certificates in the rental sector, other, smaller, landlords, might not be aware of the changes.

He added that those who would be most affected by getting a poor energy rating would be investors who had bought Victorian or Edwardian period homes rather than modern flats in blocks that were better-insulated and had more modern boilers.

The number of buy-to-let mortgages has soared in the past decade and a recent report suggested that the upward trend was set to continue.

Mintel, the market research organisation, said that the number of buy-to-let home owners could double in the next three years to about two million.

It said that the trend would be driven by continued growth of the population and the demand for rented accommodation.

Poppy35

10-05-2007, 14:59 PM

Does the government think that tenants would not rent somewhere if everything else were perfect about the house except it had a poor rating?

We have a tenant who is qualifying currently to do the HIPS reports and he came in and mentioned this to us the other day.

we await with baited breath!!

jeffrey

10-05-2007, 15:17 PM

Does the government think that tenants would not rent somewhere if everything else were perfect about the house except it had a poor rating?

We have a tenant who is qualifying currently to do the HIPS reports and he came in and mentioned this to us the other day.

we await with baited breath!!

For that matter, which prospective owner-occupier would refuse to proceed with a purchase on the bizarre ground that the property has a poor energy rating? Who could then ever buy it?

It's not even HM Government's sole fault this time: it was foisted on them (=us) by the European Union unelected political correctness thought police.

Sportingdad

10-05-2007, 21:14 PM

But I have a couple of rental properties in Paris, no TDS, no Gas Certs No Electrical/PAT tests...it would appear we are just going over the top

ChrisG

13-05-2007, 00:46 AM

EPCs are a very good idea costing around £90 - £120, the LA search would have to be done anyway, as would preparing terms and showing guarantees. I hope that sellers and landlords will have to ensure energy efficient homes before buyers will buy or tenants rent thereby bringing overall standards up. I think also it would be in the nature of the beast that if a EPC rating was low on a potential investment property most shrewd investors would use that to haggle the price down or insist on improvements being carried out before purchase thereby improving standards as a matter of course. As a HIP provider, dependant on LA search fees, I charge between £225 - £275 for the pack on standard 3 bed house.

Paragon

13-05-2007, 10:25 AM

What is the point of paying for a Certificate if you already know your house is not efficient? Why can't you just say - give me the lowest rating if you want? There is then no need to check because there is nothing to dispute.

The house is 100 years old, after all.

DianeB

13-05-2007, 10:29 AM

What is the point of paying for a Certificate if you already know your house is not efficient? Why can't you just say - give me the lowest rating if you want? There is then no need to check because there is nothing to dispute.

The house is 100 years old, after all.

I like your way of thinking!

Paragon

13-05-2007, 12:45 PM

Thank you Diane!!

ChrisG

13-05-2007, 15:19 PM

When the mot test was made mandatory for vehicles no doubt there were those that said it wasnt needed and it was just another tax on motorists - many years on bet I wouldnt find one person who would buy a car without one (assuming the car was over 3 years old of course).

Paragon

13-05-2007, 16:29 PM

Energy Efficiency Certificate is not a test of safety or even reliability.

Uncle Fester

13-05-2007, 16:34 PM

This is way Over the Top!!!

Why are Landlords always being punished for being in Business in this Country!!! :mad:

ChrisG

13-05-2007, 23:43 PM

Energy Efficiency Certificate is not a test of safety or even reliability.

Exactly - so when they reinstate the Home Condition Report it will help a prospective tenant or buyer decide if the house/flat is fit to live in.

DianeB

14-05-2007, 09:46 AM

An MOT on a car and an Energy Tax on a house is not comparing like for like.

Chris, if you found the perfect property for yourself but discovered its energy rating was quite low, how would that affect your decision on whether or not to rent it?

jeffrey

14-05-2007, 09:58 AM

An MOT on a car and an Energy Tax on a house is not comparing like for like.

Chris, if you found the perfect property for yourself but discovered its energy rating was quite low, how would that affect your decision on whether or not to rent it?

I agree: see my post #3 above.

ChrisG

15-05-2007, 00:42 AM

An MOT on a car and an Energy Tax on a house is not comparing like for like.

Chris, if you found the perfect property for yourself but discovered its energy rating was quite low, how would that affect your decision on whether or not to rent it?

Hi Diane,
Obviously I am new to this forum and it is always good to get other veiwpoints etc. so nice to meet you all so to speak.

By itself an Energy Performance Certificate is not a good comparison I agree but should it come with a Home Condition Report as part of the HIP it would be close.

However a low rating would indicate high running costs eg old type boiler, little or no insulation in the roof, missing or old hw cylinder jacket, stone or solid brick contruction with large areas of heat loss walls, no D/G etc and having found the perfect rental property I would be loath to miss out on it. However in the real world of renting and letting I would be extremely lucky to find that property and would no doubt have to compromise. However close the property was to my ideal I would still expect a responsible landlord to address the shortcomings of the Certificate and rent to me a property which came up to a standard which most people would expect both for environmental reasons and for my pocket as I could be losing hundreds of pounds p.a. as I tried to heat my home. I welcome this move by government to try to impose minimum standards on an unregulated industry.

It would not cost the landlord to much as no doubt he/she could offset against tax, claim grants etc.

I have seen many rental properties in which I wouldnt keep my dog with landlords asking disproportionate rents for and anything which raises standards has to be welcome from all sides.

I also have no doubt that the government hope that pressure from potential buyers/tenants will over time bring about change and help achieve some of the targets they have set in reducing emissions. which will be a good thing for all of us.

Furat

15-05-2007, 08:01 AM

sportingdad, You didn't need to tell us this was from the Torygraph. It's obvious!!

What next, thank god Labour are on their way out after reading this in the telegraph.

Buy-to-let investors will face another "tax" on their properties from next year, it emerged last night.

They will have to pay several hundred pounds for compulsory energy performance certificates, which are already a key component of the controversial Home Information Packs.
As people get more aware and less sheep-like, energy ratigns will become an increasingly important selling-point. How much it costs to keep your home warm and functioning IS important. Especially because the Torygraph is full of letters from oldies (living in Flange or wherever) complaining about the cost of maintaining a sauna-like atmosphere at home year-round. I would have thought a responsible newspaper would support a scheme like that.

Around 850,000 people own buy-to-let properties, many of which have been bought to augment their pensions.
Can you hear the violins playing? Appealing to their core audience? What does that imply? They've been let down by the govt before, and now they are beign squeezed again?

They have already been hit with extra red tape this year with a scheme that requires them to give their tenants' deposits to a third party for safekeeping.
Imagine the horror! Landlords have to hand over the deposits to a disinterested party for safekeeping! You mean, like thye have in other countries, where both parties don't have to deal with these things personally?

Experts said last night that buy-to-let landlords would be forced to employ qualified energy inspectors to give their properties an energy rating between A and G.
FORCED? Same way you're forced to employ a gardener? Or a roofer? Or a carpetfitter?

The certificates would likely cost around £200 and could require renewal as often as every three years,
Review the rating, as energy-efficiency improves with new technology? Why would you want to do that? "It was good enough in my day, when women knew their place....". Something tells me a review/renewal would not cost the same as the initial certificate. But that rag forgot to mention that. Odd.

adding considerably to the financial and administrative burden of renting out a property.
Well, they've removed the burden of holding on to the deposit. Plus if you consider a three-yearly certificate to be a BURDEN, then how can you manage to own your car? Insurance? Gas safety cert? Maybe living independently is too much of a burden if people cannot manage those BURDENS , let alone owning BTL property.

Home Information Packs become compulsory for any house put on the market after June 1. However, they have been widely criticised due to fears that there would not be enough qualified inspectors to carry out energy inspections and that they would not speed up the house-buying process.
What, so the Torygraph's beloved model of supply-and-demand failed to produce enough trained HIP inspectors to meet the expected demand?

Homeowners are already beginning to put properties on the market in order to avoid the cost of Home Information Packs before the deadline. The packs could cost up to £600, once the cost of the energy certificate, legal searches and other documents is included.
So, people who already wanted to sell, are having to now go to the drastic measures of ..... selling? Wow, welcome to Desperateville.

The Government has been criticised by the House of Lords for including energy certificates in the Home Information Packs. Under European law, energy inspections are required every 10 years, but they will be carried out far more frequently in the UK because of their inclusion in the packs.
So the criticism is that we will have to review how wasteful we are MORE FREQUENTLY than is strictly required by the EU? How punitive! I only check my oil and brakes every 10,000 miles, as recommended by the manufacturer. I don't check before a long journey or anything, and I certainly don't have a look every now and then. I'm too lazy to do anything but the bare minimum required by law. What a clever way to live!

A Government spokesman said that it was looking at energy certificates on rental property also being carried out more frequently than every 10 years, because it believed that this would make rental homes more energy efficient.
So now it's not every three years, but every ten years? Alarmist or what?

"The landlord does not pay the heating bills in most homes he rents out," he said.
Yeah, money IS god, right? Nothing else matters.

terrible misinformation.

DianeB

15-05-2007, 08:29 AM

Hi Diane,
Obviously I am new to this forum and it is always good to get other veiwpoints etc. so nice to meet you all so to speak.

By itself an Energy Performance Certificate is not a good comparison I agree but should it come with a Home Condition Report as part of the HIP it would be close.

However a low rating would indicate high running costs eg old type boiler, little or no insulation in the roof, missing or old hw cylinder jacket, stone or solid brick contruction with large areas of heat loss walls, no D/G etc and having found the perfect rental property I would be loath to miss out on it. However in the real world of renting and letting I would be extremely lucky to find that property and would no doubt have to compromise. However close the property was to my ideal I would still expect a responsible landlord to address the shortcomings of the Certificate and rent to me a property which came up to a standard which most people would expect both for environmental reasons and for my pocket as I could be losing hundreds of pounds p.a. as I tried to heat my home. I welcome this move by government to try to impose minimum standards on an unregulated industry.

It would not cost the landlord to much as no doubt he/she could offset against tax, claim grants etc.

I have seen many rental properties in which I wouldnt keep my dog with landlords asking disproportionate rents for and anything which raises standards has to be welcome from all sides.

I also have no doubt that the government hope that pressure from potential buyers/tenants will over time bring about change and help achieve some of the targets they have set in reducing emissions. which will be a good thing for all of us.

Hello Chris, welcome aboard!

We all do have different points of view, as you mentioned, which makes these debates all the more interesting. Enjoy!

Furat

15-05-2007, 10:06 AM

Hi Diane,
Obviously I am new to this forum and it is always good to get other veiwpoints etc. so nice to meet you all so to speak...
... which will be a good thing for all of us.